I think JHS's response was that of a gentleman and very thoughtfully presented. I agree wholeheartedly.
I love the new styles you've suggested for president Sharon!
I think the image of presidency in America has changed so much so that the portraits that we see in George Washington's time reflect how folks saw the president, and today it does the same thing. In the beginning of our nation's history the president was lifted up to a kingly position. After all, it was a kindgom that the subjects of new America stepped away from. That is why you don't see an approachable president. Because the common man didn't want to see a person capable of making mistakes...they wanted to see someone who was completely in charge and completely capable of handling the affairs of a nation with out tarnish. So the image put before the people was one of royality.
Today a man is a man and the president is also a man (or has been so far) and that is exactly what you are going to see in todays portraits. Men that are less than pure, less than holy, less than all knowing. Your next door neighbor if you will. That is why when a president is elected the whole nation can criticize him without thinking twice. In the old days only a few felt worthy enough to comment negatively on a president's decisions.
Its a sign of the times. I think it is profound and completely appropriate that Clinton's portrait is relaxed. The whole country is relaxed. Art is still keeping its place as trumpeter of the times.
Just my humble opinion!
Dianne
|
Hybrid Mode
